The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1887-09-07
PERFECT HOLINESS.
THE BIBLE TEACHES THE DOCTRINE AND
THE WORLD NEEDS THE PRACTICE
OF MORE OF IT.
Reply of Rev. w. Smith Martin to
| the Rev. ]. @. Lindsay, d. ID.

Reply of Rev. w. Smith Martin to
the Rev. ]. O. Lindsay, ID. ID.
Having read DR.. ]. o. Lindsay's last article
In the Press and banner, beg Of the Editor
space for q brief reply. l must confess that
i.s have not TN much to say, fGr me nocior has
argument, and Of course there IL but little to
answer.
He affirms, asserts, and declares, in closing,
in his sermon AS 'intact' land that they fur.
nish u crushing blow to the unscriptnral and
hnatical notions OF perfect holiness"
do not doubt but that DR.. Lindsay thinks
so, but am inclined to the opirion that It
would have been more In his favor to let
some one else have expressed that opinion:
that it would have been at least in better
taste.
He says: II want TO say my contention Is
not with the Methodsts who have been me
cfGy from The ySyaIss
member that I did net. reply to his
attack. on the Holiness Association, for
he said nothing in that sermon about such
feet holiness as a Bible doctrine, which the
Doctor knows, II he knows anything about
the doctrines Of the Methodist Church, Is and
has always been lis leading and crowning
tenet.
1t is not the doctrine OF perfect holiness
that some OF the leading brethren Of the
Methodist church condemn when they fail to
cause they see no use Of such an orgnnzs-
ton to vindica te such n doctrine when this :
is the leading and distinct feature OF their
Church.
If he IS laborlng under the delusion that
the Methodist Church Is opposed to this doe
trine and looks upon all OF her preachers who
in informing him Of his mistake. Perfect
holiness is the Methodist preacher theme,
and has been from the days OF Mr.. Wesley.
He aftirms: MAN is q corrupt machine by
what is morally, evil until renewed by the
Holy Spirit" According to the Doctors old
idea or two distinct natures, and that one Is
corrupt, and Is unaffected even by the great
how 1t will be possible for that corrupt man
he talks about: the flesh, to do anything that
is good even after he has beeu regenerated.
We are told in connection with the text he
used when he preached bis sermon that "the
works of the flesh are manifest. which are
these: adultery, fornicatlon, uncleaEness,
iascivlousness, idolatry. wltchcraft, hatred,
variance, emulutlons, wrath. strife, seditlons,
heresies, envyings, murderers, drunkenness,
revellings, and such like" We are also told
that "the fruit the spirit is love, Joy, peace,
meek ness, temperance, against such there IL
no law" Now If the fruit of the spirit MS
numerated becomes the practical part oil
be abandoned, which could not be the case "
the old Adam nature he talks about is un-
affected by regeneration.
But Ill Cne Zftu verse Ol Lle Chapter COn-
tanning his text we have this statement:
"And they that are ChriSt's have crucifed the
flesh with the affections and lusts." wodld
like for the Doctor to reconcile this with his
Idea, that 1t Is impossible for man to live
without sin.
He claims that I have exhibited innate
corruption in that I said, he repudiated the
idea Of free agency, for he says; He sISN knows
nor any other Calvanist repudiates free
agency" / only meant To say he In The
theory OF his sermon repudiated free agency.
gent reader would understand me as saying,
and as proof that statement only refer TO
what the Doctor says himself .. ~
He says: ave readily admit that God can
death. He is able to do it. We are not TO
limit his power. Butt ~ mere question of
fact-does he doit9 Will he do it8 Ianswer
Now II there is any room for the doctrine
Of moral free agency in this statement
would like for the doctor TO point II out He
says It is impossible for man to li;e without
sin. Is there any free agency In that? It Is
sin God forbids and tells US we must not COM.
init, and II it is an i'm mpossbility for man to-
quires an impossibility even after a man has
placed himself in harmony with Gods very
economy provided to save him from sin.
AS regards his Old Testament quotation he
affirns that it is universal in its application
and that 1t means just what 1t says for al
time and for all people, viz: "There Is not a
Just man on earth that doeth good and sim
meth not"
Dr. Clark says, In speaking OF this passage,
that the Hebrew means, "may not SIM"
There Is not man upon earth, however
just he may be, and habituated to do good,
but is peccable--liable to commit sin."
Thisexposition Is by Hebrew sch olar, and
destroys the force Of Its application as used
by DR.. Lindsay.
I will notice but one thing more, and that
Is the contention he makes, that the 8th
verse OF first chapter of 1st John, Is intended
to teach the impossbility OF mans living
In this life without committing sin.
He quotes Mr.. Matthew Henry and Mr.
Spurgeon on this passage as standards. am
free to say would as soon have DR.. Llndsay's
English Interpretation Of the passage as that
of the gentlemen quoted. Their interpreta-
ton Of the passage Is as abstract or as dis
connected with what goes before or follows
after as that OF the Brother with whom l am
contending.
am willing to let the intelligent reader
take his own views and judge for himself II
my friend will take the entire chapter, and
make an elaborate explanation OF 1t so as IT,
the sth verse, am sure he will become more
renowned than either Of the distinguished
gentlemen he quotes. I would like TO read
such an exposition.
Ihave attempted nothing as the reader will
see, but reply to DR.. Lindsay, and unless he
expected to say more without diverglng from
the points ut issue. To my mind 1t Is very
clear that the Bible teaches the doctrine OF
perfect holiness, and II is more Of the practice
that the world needs; and I must confess
that am at loss TO see what good end any
an essential factor In the great problem OF
"o''"" '''e' ". sMffrin MARTIN.